Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[TheLoneBedouin]

It is dishonest to claim that you have a "pentagon flyover witness" when you in fact do not. This reflects badly on your overall credibility.

Semantics. If you go to a magic show would you say you 'witnessed' a man cut a women in half and put her body back together? Or after examining the evidence would you say you witnessed a trick?
"Flyover witness" is not absolute- if you have a theory which fits the data better it would be changed.

 

[Reheat]

An FDR may have been recovered. But it doesn't seem likely that the FOIA data came from it.

Well now, I guess you have an explanation of how the last 25 hours of AA77's flight profile ended up on the FOIA data. The NTSB put the wrong data for the last flight? How many agencies and people are "in on it" now? It must be in the thousands and growing....

 

[stateofgrace]

An FDR may have been recovered. But it doesn't seem likely that the FOIA data came from it.

No that is not what I asked. I asked quite specifically, and you are the expert, so please answer specifically.

The FDR was recovered ,physically, from the Pentagon? Yes or no?

 

[OldTigerCub]

I have never analyzed FDR data. I don't know if any FDR data was recovered from the Pentagon- for that I would need to know the chain of evidence.
The FDR data provided by FOIA does not seem to be from the Pentagon since it places the plane NOC.

Let me give you a little help on this. The CVR was located in the vicinity of the punch-out hole on Friday, September 14, 2001 by FBI photographer Jen Hill a little after 2:30 am. The FDR was located a few feet away about a half hour later by an NTSB agent. Both were identified by NTSB agents and both were transported to the NTSB laboratory in Washington that morning by FBI Special Agent Tom O'Connor. They were handed over to NTSB technicians who downloaded the FDR data under the observation of Agent O'Connor. As we all know by now, the CVR was damaged beyond readability by the combination of the crash and intense fire, but the FDR data was retrievable, and analysis of it was started immediately.
You already have the name of the NTSB technician that certified the FDR report.
You have your chain of custody.

 

[D'rok]

Semantics. If you go to a magic show would you say you 'witnessed' a man cut a women in half and put her body back together? Or after examining the evidence would you say you witnessed a trick?
"Flyover witness" is not absolute- if you have a theory which fits the data better it would be changed.

Nobody even witnessed the trick in this case. Regardless of whether or not it was sleight of hand/plane, no-one saw the performance. Your analogy fails.

ETA: Actually, never mind that. I'm misinterpreting your analogy.

I would remind you that you claimed here that dozens of people stated on camera "the pentagon flyover". Where are they?

 

[pomeroo]

Though not the only suspect.

The technical term is ponerization.
Also see the most famous example of this process.

Only very few know about this (political party is irrelevant).

Total idiocy. Your imaginary conspiracy had no conceivable motive. You have no witnesses to a flyover that didn't happen. There is a mountain of physical evidence disproving your fantasy.

It's long past time for you to get a life.

 

[JimBenArm]

No, there is no other way to explain it.

Sure there is. You're misrepresenting what he said to fit your preconcieved notion of what happened, rather than interpreting it in light of other evidence.

So, you're wrong, yet again. Of course, you knew this already, didn't you?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

We are not calculating based upon a constant bank, but based upon a variable bank.

Please explain how and when the bank angle changes in your model.

An aircraft which is descending has greater weight than lift. In order to maintain the minimum curve the plane would have to roll more in order to distribute less force into opposing gravity, and more (proportionately) into turning.

Unless you had vectored thrust (see how useless it is to speculate).

Indeed they might, but witness accounts give a pretty clear indication they passed directly over the impact point, and besides if they did not, CITs theory about an explosion confusing them would not make sense. If you wish to propose an alternate bearing and position then please do.

The point is, it would be disingenuous to say the NOC path is impossible if slight movement of the flyover point changed the outcome.

We already have many eyewitness accounts, all of them suggesting slight bank angles and at least one or two claimed 'wings level' if I remember correctly.

The only one who suggests a slight bank angle is Morin- and his account is self-contradictory. Also, according to Craig's informal interview he was in between wings 4 and 5 when he saw the plane and wouldn't have been able to see it bank. Watch the new trailer, which includes a witness who was specifically asked about the bank angles (the guy with the toy plane). The 'wing level' quote is probably Paik, who was on the other side of the navy annex.

Remember, according to the CIT debating rules, if you have multiple corroborated accounts, you cannot disprove something.

Untrue. Craig told you how you could falsify their findings.

There is no data to analyse, CIT has presented only witness account and speculation. On the contrary, we do have data to form a reliable bounding case.

Ok, like what.
1)The plane must have flown NOC.
2)The plane must have flown over the explosion area.
3)The plane flew over the Navy Annex.
4)The plane flew east of the Potomac.
Are you seriously suggesting that is enough data to create a reliable model?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Sure there is. You're misrepresenting what he said to fit your preconcieved notion of what happened, rather than interpreting it in light of other evidence.

Ok, what other evidence should I use?

 

[Reheat]

Unless you had vectored thrust (see how useless it is to speculate).

You have no clue again, do you? You seem to think vectored thrust creates some kind of Batman vehicle.

There WERE NO SMALL OR LARGE TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT WITH VECTORED THRUST IN 2001 and THERE ARE NONE NOW! THERE WON'T BE IN 10 YEARS EITHER. GOT IT?

In fact, there was only one aircraft with it, the Harrier. Was it a Harrier that flew NoC?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So Turbofan is wrong when he claims the FDR was recovered from the Pentagon then?

I don't know. There was no way 'Turbofan' could possibly know that unless he was there.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

There WERE NO SMALL OR LARGE TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT WITH VECTORED THRUST IN 2001 and THERE ARE NONE NOW! THERE WON'T BE IN 10 YEARS EITHER. GOT IT?

Of course there weren't any in the public domain. We're not talking about that.
We're talking about an aircraft especially modified for a military psy ops. Got it?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I love the idea that there were two planes yet only 1 person happened to see them both the rest of the 1000s of people somehow missed the 2nd plane flying over top. Even funnier is the idea of the people coming up with such a plan:

"Yeah, so we'll fly two planes on on top of the other and one will be e decoy"

"But don't you think the 1000s of witnesses might notice the 2nd plane?"

"Nah, don't think about that kind of stuff. We're not going to fly any plane into the building, we're going to fly one right over and one north of the citgo, then we'll crash the real plane, plant the bodies and parts at the scene at the exact time of the bomb going off . Oh BTW boys, try not to get hurt by the bomb while you're planting those parts there in front of 1000s of people...."

My god, the endless stupid...

There is no 'second plane'- that's the point.

 

[stateofgrace]

No that is not what I asked. I asked quite specifically, and you are the expert, so please answer specifically.

The FDR was recovered ,physically, from the Pentagon? Yes or no?

I don't know. There was no way 'Turbofan' could possibly know that unless he was there.

So it is possible, unless he was there, that he is just making stuff up, right?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So it is possible, unless he was there, that he is just making stuff up, right?

Well, technically he's incorrect. It would be more accurate to say:
"If an fdr was found at the Pentagon it had to have been planted".

 

[stateofgrace]

Well, technically he's incorrect. It would be more accurate to say:
"If an fdr was found at the Pentagon it had to have been planted".

He is claiming the FDRs were found at the Pentagon, with manipulated data already on them.

Do you disagree? If so, why are you not correcting him?

 

[Reheat]

Of course there weren't any in the public domain. We're not talking about that.
We're talking about an aircraft especially modified for a military psy ops. Got it?

Funny stuff! So a special vectored thrust aircraft which doesn't exist was created just to fly North of the Citgo and make you a famous investigator. I won't ask where the $$ for this special project came from as I'm sure you have an answer.

Your delusions have no bounds.

 

[WildCat]

Of course there weren't any in the public domain. We're not talking about that.
We're talking about an aircraft especially modified for a military psy ops. Got it?

You've got to be kidding! Vectored thrust on, at a minimum, an airplane that could easily be mistaken for a 757.

Oh dear FSM, can it get any more stupid? I'd think vectored thrust on engines located out on the wing might just tear them off the plane... but hey I'm not a genius truther with common sense.

 

[WildCat]

I won't ask where the $$ for this special project came from as I'm sure you have an answer.

From the $2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon budget, and the trillions in gold taken from the WTC of course.

 

[Reheat]

From the $2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon budget, and the trillions in gold taken from the WTC of course.